State VS Family

One only has to look at the facts to see that the State views the family as competition and is trying to eliminate it.

From: The Ludwig von Mises Institute 

In turning to Sweden, we find a classic case of bureaucratic manipulation to destroy the state's principal rival as a focus of loyalty: the family. Viewing this rivalry between state and family, it is important to understand that a basic level of "dependency" is a constant in all societies. In every human community, there are infants and children, persons who are very old, individuals who have severe handicaps, and others who are seriously ill. These people cannot take care of themselves. Without help from others, they will die. Every society must have a way of giving care to these dependents. Under the domain of liberty, the natural institution of the family (supplemented and supported by local communities and voluntary organizations) provides the protection and care which these "dependent" people need. Indeed, it is in the autonomous family—and only in the family—where the pure socialist principle actually works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

From: Forbes

As the Times reports, families look very different today than they did just a few decades ago. Turn back the clock 30 year, and less than 20% of births occurred outside marriage. Today the rate is 41%. While that difference used to be attributed mostly to race, education seems to be the determining factor now: as recently as 1990, only 10% of the births to white women with some postsecondary education but no college degree were outside of marriage. Today it’s tripled to 30%. It’s even worse for women with a high school degree or less: the figure is 60% for them.

(from: Single Parent Magazine)

13.6

approximately 13.6 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.2 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today).
- U.S. Census Bureau

60%

Single father homes are the fastest growing type of family situation; the amount of single fathers has grown by 60% in the last ten years alone.
- www.usalegalcare.com

1.4

Million children (almost one child in twenty) live in a household headed by their grandparent with no parent present.
- http://ohioline.osu.edu/ss-fact

Then look at the upside downside:

From: NYT

But while the fact that the sons of single mothers struggle more than their daughters is the easy headline to take away from the work done by Professors Autor and Wasserman, it’s the wrong one. The focus on men and boys shouldn’t distract from a larger problem: single mothers and their daughters may be doing better, but they can’t be said to be thriving. Single motherhood is associated with poor health in middle age, financial hardship and depression. The statistical impacts of being raised by a single parent (like lower average scores on standardized tests, poorer grades and an increased likelihood of dropping out of high school or failing to attend college) may be stronger for sons, but they affect daughters too.

Now almost no one will point the finger at the source of the problem - but perhaps the following can shed some light on the subject.

The rise of the welfare state can be written as the steady transfer of the "dependency" function from the family to the state; from persons tied together by blood, marriage or adoption to persons tied to public employees. The process began in Sweden in the mid-19th century, through bureaucratic projects that began dismantling the bonds between parents and their children. In classic pattern, the first assertion of state control over children came in the 1840s, with the passage of a mandatory school attendance law. While justified as a measure to improve the knowledge and welfare of the people, the deeper dynamic was the socialization of children's time, through the assumptions that state functionaries—the Swedish kingdom's bureaucrats—knew better than parents how children's time should be spent, and that parents could not be expected or trusted to protect their children from exploitation.
The next step came in 1912, with legislation that effectively banned child labor in factories, and to some degree on farms. Again, the implicit assumption was that state welfare officials were better judges of the use of children's time, and more compassionate toward children than parents were or could be.
The final step came at about the same time, when the Swedish government implemented a program of old-age or retirement pensions that quickly became universal. The underlying act here was the socializing of another dependency function, this time, the dependency of the "very old" and the "weak" on mature adults. For eons, the care of the elderly had been a family matter. Henceforward, it would be the state's concern. Taking all of these reforms together, the net effect was to socialize the economic value of children. The natural economy of the household, and the value that children had brought their parents—be it as workers in the family enterprise or as an 'insurance policy' for old age—was stripped away. Parents were still left with the costs of raising the children, but the economic gain they would eventually represent had been seized by "society," meaning the bureaucratic state.

 Look a the growth of the EBT card in the U.S. as yet another dependency program.  And now ObamaCare.  

When the family fails - what's left?  Nothing but slaves to the state.  And there is no other term than slave that fits - someone else is determining your needs, your wants, your job, the future of your children, what you can eat, when you can eat it, where you live.  It's slavery and 50% of the people in this country can't seem to get enough of it.



 

Wow - Hell just froze over

I really dislike Bill Maher - but apparently he isn't completely stupid, he's just a hypocrite.   

I ain't giving up my guns.

So here we have two Progressive morons - who seem to have come to the conclusion that - you need to do something to protect yourself between the time your home is invaded, and the cops show up - if they bother.

I'm not sure which I'm more surprised about - that Moore (hypocritical, lying sack of shit) suggested the Bill needs more range time, or that at least two (and possibly 3) of the panel seem to be admitting to owning guns.

I'm not a tiny bit surprised that Bill referred to the Second Amendment as Bullshit.  He think the people who should have rights are the ones who agree with him

That Moore would comment on the amount of range time needed, suggests that he probably owns one or more himself.  But then he's a world class hypocrite so.. 

The Curse of History

There's an old quote from Edmund Burke

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke

It's been paraphrased hundreds of times, he may have adapted it from someone earlier - it seems self evident. 

Here's the problem - Even when you know history, you may be doomed to repeat it.  

If you ask a progressive to tell you about Stalin, or Hitler they'll be able to tell you they were BAD people, they'll be able to recite some of the atrocities.   What they won't  be able to do is look at their own policies and see the similarity.   They don't view themselves that way so they can't see that their actions will inexorably lead to the same result.  Part of that is extreme arrogance. 

We can make big government work, we can make everyone safe and you'll still be free.    

When they actually believe it, it's arrogance.  They think they're smarter than everyone before them who failed.  Somehow - and they're unable to explain the mechanism - they will succeed when attempt in history has resulted in tyranny.   The arrogance comes from, I think, a deeply held belief that they are not subject to human nature, that they are more evolved.   Despite all the evidence to the contrary.   Because they need it to be true - their entire self worth is tied up in it being true.  

They will never listen to reason.  They will never accept facts that contradict the progressive narrative.   They can't - it's human nature to believe in your world view, your self worth, your identity depends on it.

So, even if they're well versed in history, it won't help.   The curse of history is that some will see it coming again, while those who pursue it won't see it until they're buried under it.    

Avoiding it requires both a knowledge of it, and an acceptance that, despite out technological advances, we are separated from our barbarity by a vary thin line that only exists because we've managed to cooperate long enough to achieve some level of comfort.  It's human nature - which is to say - it's how we were created, how we evolved. We haven't evolved enough in the last 200 years, or the last 500 years to make a difference. All you need to do to see that is look at the state of suffering in the world. 

We might get there in 10,000 years if we can survive that long, but I wouldn't bet on either one happening.

Way too far

Normally I follow the Heinlein Maxim: 

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

For THIS to be anything but malice is too hard to believe.  The charge is obstruction - the method - he wouldn't stop talking.  The cause - he wore an NRA t-shirt.

I suspect this is what Stalin's USSR would look like if it had started off with a Constitution - It would have ended up in the same place, it just would have taken a few years longer.   Exercising his first amendment rights - by showing silent support for the NRA is tantamount to terrorism - which apparently they considered charging him with. 

 Yes the progressives really do think the NRA is a terrorist organization.  

 

What are the Odds

A little more info for the previous post.

From the CDC: 2010 data

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 597,689
• Cancer: 574,743
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
• Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
• Diabetes: 69,071
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

From the Global Terrorism Database  total domestic deaths from terrorism were 3,030 from 2000-2010. The data only goes to 2011 so far,   So the annual average is 275.  If you take the 10 years from 2001-2011 the numbers don't change significantly.   Between 9/12/2001 and 12/31/2011 the total is 32 - or approximately 3 people annually.

Given that the NSA knew when the terrorist arrived in the U.S. and essentially did nothing with that data, and given the argument is; we need to let the NSA collect all this data because it will stop attacks.  It's only useful if it's acted upon, so 9/11 doesn't meet the goal.   From a Data analysis point of view the 9/11 attack is an outlier - completely uncharacteristic of other world wide attacks. The Post 9/11 number is about 3.

So, you're 140 times more likely to commit suicide than be killed by a terrorist. Without 9/11 you're 12,788 times more likely. Are you scared yet?

From Medical News Today - there are 195,000 in hospital deaths by error each year.    Which means you are  709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a terrorist - that includes 9/11 - with out 9/11 the number is 65,000 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.

If TSA costs each person at the airport 15 minutes (yeah right) and the average wage is $20/hour (and I suspect the number is much higher) then we're taking 3.5 billion out of the economy each year. (source WSJ).  And that's JUST the TSA - now add in the cost of all the illegal NSA programs, the DHS TANKS, the wars.  It's not pretty.

So, from an economic point of view, the terrorists have won.  Because rather than being rational about it - we let our selves be terrified and irrational and we made really stupid choices - like the TSA, or letting the NSA and DHS destroy the Constitution - which was exactly what Osama bin Ladin was after.   It could only be accomplished with the help and cooperation of our Government.  The scope of terrorism in the U.S. would have to vastly exceed the total world levels to even come close to matching what we're costing ourselves - even without the loss of Liberty.

Let's recap, compared to terrorism, you are:
140 times more likely to commit suicide.
709 times more likely to be killed by your doctor.
120 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident.

YES we absolutely need to take precautions - we need to investigate, we need to be aware, but we've gone WAY too far with this.  There is no evidence that TSA has done anything other than harass and steal from passengers, except cost us money.   Even with all the extra man power, the militarization of the police, the extension of armed forces into domestic policy - Boston still happened, and it was a civilian who found the terrorist.  A little self reliance and paying attention did more than the DHS, National Guard, SWAT and Satellites, in capturing the perp.  
   
So - Get a grip people - you want to be scared of something - be scared of your doctor.

If you don't trust them

In a comment to JudgyBitch about the NSA spying, I wrote the following:

I find it amusing in a scary sort of way, that Republicans are somewhat OK with NSA snooping when a Republican is in office – Dems are very much against it. Reverse the party in office and reverse the results. What this shows is a serious lack of vision – no hindsight, no ability to project forward. Once a government takes a power to itself, it rarely (if ever) gives it up – so when your party is in power, the question you need to ask is – do I trust the other party with this power? And if the answer isn’t a resounding YES, then maybe you’d better avoid giving that power away.

Someone suggested that I needed to take it a step further and ask if you would trust Hitler with it.  I live in a community with a lot of retired liberals - when you listen to them, their is no doubt that that wouldn't trust Bush with anything.  I suspect their response to any Republican would be similar.   Most of them still think Obama was a good idea.    The Republicans I know don't trust any Democrat from what I can see.   The funny thing is, those two parties are so close in terms of behavior that the only significant difference is which lobbyists they let though the door.

So I don't believe we need apply the Godwin Law

Most administrations since I understood enough to care, have shown a willingness to abuse their power.   The will is there, we don't need to give them a way.


Something to think about,  Historically speaking your more likely to be killed by your own government. 

From Reason Magazine: 

Ohio State University political scientist John Mueller and Mark Stewart, an engineering professor at University of Newcastle in Australia recently estimated that the U.S. has spent $1 trillion on anti-terrorism security measures since 2001 (this figure does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Assuming that 2,300 Americans might have been killed by terrorists inside the United States, this implies a cost of more that $400 million dollars per life saved. Typically when evaluating the costs of protective regulations, federal government agencies set the value of a life at about $9 million.

That's from 2001-2010.

From the Wall Street Journal

Overall, academic and governmental databases report, terrorist attacks killed a total of about 5,300 people in the most highly developed nations since the end of the Cold War in 1991, a rate of about 300 per year. The chance of a Westerner being killed by a terrorist is exceedingly low: about a one in three million each year, or the same chance an American will be killed by a tornado.

So, unless the NSA thinks Americans are building nukes or equally dangerous WMDs (the old definition - not the Boston one) monitoring us is also a waste of money.

Companies I've lost all respect for

Top of my list is Verizon - for obvious reasons.

Then we have Google for a number of reasons. So, I don't use Google directly - I use Startpage. 

I've always had a love/hate relationship with Apple - love the hardware, hate the politics.  Their approach to OS upgrades SUCK.  I can live with the " Gee we're changing platforms so you'll need to go buy all new applications - to bad."   What bugs me is when they take a working OS like Snow Leopard, and then turn it into a piece of crap like Lion.  Then finally sort of fix it again with Mountain Lion.    It's very Microsoft.    I don't think I'm going to give up on Apple, it's one of those places where I'm willing to suck it up, because I don't care much for the alternatives.    (specifically phones and tablets)

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the other companies on the PRISM list.   Seeing what the NSA did to Quest (and I'm not talking about what might have been a valid conviction for Insider trading).  Quest had the no-bid contracts - asked for total servalence and when Nacchio said no - they canceled the contracts, essentially punishing QUEST for failing to violate the public trust - the fact the Nacchio sold his stock before the news of the lost contracts came out probably does qualify as insider trading - but then I suspect the government could make a case for every sale of stock owned by a current CEO - and they don't.

I'm unsure how much coercion was being used.  I think they all suck for going along with it, but depending on what they'd already signed, maybe some of them felt they didn't have much choice.    But let me be clear - you do have a choice.  You can either pave the road to Tyranny with your good intentions or you can say NO.

NO by the way is the correct answer. 

Men and stuff

Bad night - Sinus headache, bad mood - and I'm going to rant - so be warned.

I've been getting more and more fed up with the notion that it's OK to attack men for being men.  I had a conversation with an NPR talk show host when I lived in the Bay Area.  This was back in the mid 90's and she wondered why it was the only group anyone could make fun of anymore was White Males - yep even back in the 90's.  I called in and told her - Because we're the only one's with a sense of humor anymore.  Everyone else takes themselves too seriously.

Well I seem to have lost my sense of humor - it's been pummeled out of me by the constant, unrelenting attacks by feminists.

The Captain had a link to A Voice for Men post about a Bill Burr rant 
Where in Pual Elam busts Bill's Balls for easing up on women who trash a man's personal property as an act of revenge for cheating.  All based on the Carrie Underwood song.   Yeah I hate that song too.   So where Paul has a problem with Bill's podcast is:

But here’s the deal. At straight up 9:00 minutes into the video, after ripping these women a complete new asshole for being unrepentant criminals, he challenges women who have been cheated on to find a more functional way handle the situation. And he encourages them to take some responsibility, saying, “You know, rather than looking inward going, you know, maybe I’m a bad judge of character. What sort of qualities am I looking for in somebody, and I’ll date that. I mean, didn’t the fact that the guy had a souped-up four wheel drive truck, didn’t that give it away on any fucking level?”

And I am like, what?

Did I just hear Bill Burr counsel women who justify fucking vandalism as form of petty vengeance that the problem was that they chose men with bad character? What about her character? I mean, how much good is it doing to suggest to scumbag women that they need to pick principled men to date? And by what standard, their cars?

This is where I think Bill, who was on a hell of a roll, skidded right off the tracks into the ditch. It is consistent with the Sugar and Spice mentality about women that even a guy like Bill can default to, and even when he is talking about some disaster of a cunt who slashes tires when she is upset. Did he imagine that before she was cheated on that this woman was some sort of fucking saint

Well, Paul - no I don't think that's what he did.   I think what he did was council women who might be thinking that way to try a different - less illegal track.  Before they take that first step.     Now I agree, judging a man by his car is a bit like judging a woman by her purse - kind of stupid.  The notion that people use cars as a form of compensation is so exaggerated at this point - it serves no purpose. 

Where Bill went off the rails is when he decided to go down that same track and talk about two shots to the ball of lettuce on her shoulders.  Even saying (and I paraphrase here) - "I'm not condoning hitting woman" - is pointless.   It shows that you, as a man can talk about / dream about doing those types of things just as easily as a woman.   Counter productive Bill.

The most telling point here - is that Radical Feminism's preaching of hate toward men is having a lot of unintended consequences.  I for example, used to think feminists had a valid point of view - now I think they just hate men.  Hmm, maybe hate is not the right word - despise perhaps. They've gotten women declared a protected class entitled to treat every criticism as hate speech, much like blacks and other minorities - but they're not a minority.  And feminists are the one's distorting facts, preaching hate, and demanding special treatment.  Men are starting to respond in a way that women are not going to like.  We're being told we're not necessary - So. Fine. We'll go our own way, let's see how well that works for you.

Take Facebook's recent actions as an example.  F***b**k has gone over the edge and become a tool for the radical feminists - they can post their hate men messages, but anything critical of feminism get's yanked.   I'd have dropped F***b**k except it takes effort to log in and do that.  An effort I haven't had the motivation to expend for quite a while.   So, some time in the next few days I'll get around to deleting my F***b**k account.   Why?  Because they force their opinions on people, they spy on people, the treat peoples information and copyrighted data as fodder for their money machine.    They represent the worst of the tech industry, much like Google (yeah I know blogger is a G-tool - it provides a platform for me to bash G's politics at G's expense).   At least to date they've haven't decided to deny First Amendment rights to people who disagree with them.  (I don't expect it to last - they're too progressive to let people disagree with their ideology.)

I'm not looking for protection and special treatment - I'm just going to boycott those who talk about being against hate, when they're really supporting it.

Oh and on the off chance that someone actually wonders - I'm all for equality, even if it is - in the end - a bad deal for women.  When I say equality I mean it - if you can't pass the tests, we shouldn't be making them easier just so women can pass (yes I know there are any number of women who would do significantly better than I can on physical fitness tests - not the point, I'm not trying out for Spec Ops, or Fire Fighter).  Women should not get any special treatment for being women, they should get equal treatment - period.

Why does everyone sound so surprised?

The NSA is spying on us - wow news - NOT (from last year)

If you think they don't have copies of every email, post, IM and text you've ever sent - your probably wrong.   It's what they do - they snoop - on EVERYONE.

Is it abuse - YES.  Should they be arrested - YES, imprisoned - YES.  Am I surprised? No.

Government Overreach is Standard Operating Procedure.

Welcome to the Police State.   - Orwell just missed it by a few years.

Jazz state of mind

I go though phases with music.  For months it was Folk/Rock vocals, lately I've been spending a lot of time listening to classic rock.  Today I fell into a jazz state of mind today - There's a lot of jazz I really love that's been on the back burner for a while.

Claire Martin who records on the Linn label has been a favorite of mine since the early nineties when I found a copy of The Waiting Game

 

Here's a sample from my favorite album of her's - Old Boyfriends

The Wheelers and Dealers

 

Once I start down the path I'll be on it for awhile so I suspect I'll be mentioning some of my other favorites in the next few weeks.